Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Receivers 2014

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Receivers 2014

    I'd prefer we not depend on former practice squad scrubs to fill the hole of a HOFer.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Receivers 2014

      Me either, I see Nicks as an audition this year and our long-term number one receiver when Reggie decides to walk away.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Receivers 2014

        Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
        I'd prefer we not depend on former practice squad scrubs to fill the hole of a HOFer.
        Not sure who indicated so. We're just talking depth. We are in the rare position of being 6-deep at WR. Of course, Whalen/Rogers/Brazill are not in the category of Wayne/Hilton/Nicks... but they aren't half bad. And Wayne/Nicks have a bit of recent injury history. So one of those 4-thru-6 guys is likely to get cut, and it's just an interesting thought because I can't remember in our team history having our 4-thru-6 receivers actually being decent. Like Strummer was saying, Brazill is the one that I'd let go of first, because of his substance history. Whalen has a tremendous work ethic and drive to improve and I just can't discount that... Rogers has the talent, if he could just realize it.
        There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Receivers 2014

          I want to see Reggie come back from injury and prove he can still be productive. He and the oft injured Nicks going into the preseason as #2 and #3 on the depth chart makes me a tad nervous.

          Rodgers and Brazil have shown flashes, but Whalen has outproduced both guys when given the chance.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Receivers 2014

            Yea, that's my stance on Whalen. He is the least "talented" of the three, and yet has arguably been the more consistent option, when given the chance. They keep stuffin the poor kid on the practice squad, when Brazill is out getting suspensions for substance abuse. Rogers has just been wayyy too inconsistent thus far. I see some Stokely/Welker in Whalen, and not just because they're all white. They play similarly. I like having skillsets like that around, they always seem to move the chains and make tough, critical catches.
            There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Receivers 2014

              To me it is pretty simple, harder to find a Rodgers type than a Brazil or Whalen type, so really I don't think he should be in this conversation.

              Like I said I think all 3 will stay due to the status of Wayne, but if there has to be a cut it comes down to Brazil and Whalen.

              Honestly as far as production both can be replaced fairly easily in my opinion so it doesn't really matter, but as far as character and off the field stuff I think Whalen clearly has the edge so most likely he would make the cut. Only thing to consider, I think with Brazil he can play inside and out, not sure if Whalen can do both so that is something to think about as well.

              Sidenote, even though it still sucks Nicks has missed less than 3 games any season over his career. But there has been a big slump in his production and even though Eli was having an atrocious year you have to wonder if Nicks has what it takes still to be a #1 receiver in this league.
              Why so SERIOUS

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Receivers 2014

                Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                Yea, that's my stance on Whalen. He is the least "talented" of the three, and yet has arguably been the more consistent option, when given the chance. They keep stuffin the poor kid on the practice squad, when Brazill is out getting suspensions for substance abuse. Rogers has just been wayyy too inconsistent thus far. I see some Stokely/Welker in Whalen, and not just because they're all white. They play similarly. I like having skillsets like that around, they always seem to move the chains and make tough, critical catches.
                I wouldn't say Welker, and for Rogers I think the inconsistency is okay for now, started out at Tennessee and got suspended went to another lower level school where he could beat guys just with his gifts and probably didn't get as much coaching up in the other areas, came to the Colts without an offseason with them and was put into game action with in the first 4 weeks he was with the team I believe. If he still has a bunch of inconsistency after this year then maybe you can worry, but right now it is still a little too early.
                Why so SERIOUS

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Receivers 2014

                  Originally posted by Really? View Post
                  I wouldn't say Welker, and for Rogers I think the inconsistency is okay for now, started out at Tennessee and got suspended went to another lower level school where he could beat guys just with his gifts and probably didn't get as much coaching up in the other areas, came to the Colts without an offseason with them and was put into game action with in the first 4 weeks he was with the team I believe. If he still has a bunch of inconsistency after this year then maybe you can worry, but right now it is still a little too early.
                  I definitely see a lil' Welker in Whalen. The assumption you should make from my comment is that I didn't mean they are carbon-copies of each other, just that they share similarities.
                  There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Receivers 2014

                    I think Whalen was the benefit of fitting what the Colts needed at the time. He was the only possession receiver the Colts had at the end of last year. He reminds me more of Blair White. He's a mediocre safety valve who is probably not versatile enough to do much else. He's useful insurance and he won't kill you when he's on the field, but that's about it.

                    I think who gets cut should depend on injuries. If Wayne and Nicks (who IMO are both possession type receivers) look like injury risks after preseason, they should keep Whalen. If both those guys look ready to go, then there's no reason to keep a 3rd possession receiver and they should keep the higher upside guys instead.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Receivers 2014

                      Originally posted by Cubs231721 View Post
                      I think Whalen was the benefit of fitting what the Colts needed at the time. He was the only possession receiver the Colts had at the end of last year. He reminds me more of Blair White. He's a mediocre safety valve who is probably not versatile enough to do much else. He's useful insurance and he won't kill you when he's on the field, but that's about it.

                      I think who gets cut should depend on injuries. If Wayne and Nicks (who IMO are both possession type receivers) look like injury risks after preseason, they should keep Whalen. If both those guys look ready to go, then there's no reason to keep a 3rd possession receiver and they should keep the higher upside guys instead.
                      Whalen is a survivor. The more you see him the more you like him even though he's not the most talented guy out there but doesn't make too many mistakes. Can't say that about the other 2 in the mix. Also Luck and pep obviously like to have him around. I'm guessing they find a way to keep Griff because if Nicks is really good he will want a big contract and if he isn't he is gone anyway.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Receivers 2014

                        Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                        I definitely see a lil' Welker in Whalen. The assumption you should make from my comment is that I didn't mean they are carbon-copies of each other, just that they share similarities.
                        I mean to me they are totally different, quickness, the way they run routes, how they are with he ball in their hands. I am more with the Blair white idea than Welker, I think that is a big stretch.
                        Why so SERIOUS

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Receivers 2014

                          "Similarities" are all subjective. I think all those guys are in the same general category; you obviously break them down even further, but I can't say they are "totally different." Everyone categorizes things differently. I still think those three guys are a lot more alike than say, Calvin Johnson... or AJ Green. Sure Welker is quicker; but they both make tough catches across the middle, make nice out route catches, run tight routes, and move the chains. They both do most of their damage in short and medium yardage situations. Whalen is a poor man's Welker. I never said they were identical, or on the same level. Just that they have similarities. Obviously Welker has produced a lot more.... but he's been around longer. Welker, like Whalen, was undrafted, and bounced around a year or two before landing some consistent playing time, and even then (like Whalen), slowly increased his production over a 2-3 year period before he took off in year 4 and 5.

                          I'm not comparing 2012 Welker with 2012 Whalen. I'm comparing 2005 Welker with 2013 Whalen. Not saying Whalen is going to have Welker's career, but there's nothing stopping him from having 50-75% of Welker's production, which I would happily take. Whalen actually is bigger than Welker by a few inches and a lot more muscle, especially at their respective points in their career. Welker wasn't Whalen-big in year 2.
                          Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 03-19-2014, 10:40 PM.
                          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Receivers 2014

                            Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                            "Similarities" are all subjective. I think all those guys are in the same general category; you obviously break them down even further, but I can't say they are "totally different." Everyone categorizes things differently. I still think those three guys are a lot more alike than say, Calvin Johnson... or AJ Green. Sure Welker is quicker; but they both make tough catches across the middle, make nice out route catches, run tight routes, and move the chains. They both do most of their damage in short and medium yardage situations. Whalen is a poor man's Welker. I never said they were identical, or on the same level. Just that they have similarities. Obviously Welker has produced a lot more.... but he's been around longer. Welker, like Whalen, was undrafted, and bounced around a year or two before landing some consistent playing time, and even then (like Whalen), slowly increased his production over a 2-3 year period before he took off in year 4 and 5.

                            I'm not comparing 2012 Welker with 2012 Whalen. I'm comparing 2005 Welker with 2013 Whalen. Not saying Whalen is going to have Welker's career, but there's nothing stopping him from having 50-75% of Welker's production, which I would happily take. Whalen actually is bigger than Welker by a few inches and a lot more muscle, especially at their respective points in their career. Welker wasn't Whalen-big in year 2.
                            I just think that is too open ended though there are a lot of people that do that same thing, like I said I just think it is a stretch, the key things to Welkers game is his quickness and how that causes problems and mismatches, I guess and the fact he makes circus catches at times, if another person does not have those then in my eyes they are not that similar.

                            Also can't even remember Welker in 2005, what is the point in comparing the two during that time? I mean I don't think Whalen has the separation skills to grow like Welker has over the years. I think there are a lot of people that have the skills you outlined, but also I don't think they are similar to Welker.

                            P.S. I just want you to know that I appreciate your comments, and my responses are not a personal attack but just a difference in opinion that I like to address, and I am not always against your comments either, lol
                            Why so SERIOUS

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Receivers 2014

                              Sounds like you two are judging their similarities two different ways. Kid is looking at how they produce on a typical play. Really is looking at their attributes/style. The key thing here I think is that they are both slot receivers, so the comparison is legit.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Receivers 2014

                                Originally posted by Eleazar View Post
                                Sounds like you two are judging their similarities two different ways. Kid is looking at how they produce on a typical play. Really is looking at their attributes/style. The key thing here I think is that they are both slot receivers, so the comparison is legit.
                                Yeah, but in that case I would just say he is a slot receiver, there are many to compare him to, but I think Welker is a special case, to me that is like saying Rogers has # 1 potential and is similar to Calvin Johnson, they have some similarities, but are still very different and the thing that makes johnson special is not seen anywhere in Rogers game.
                                Why so SERIOUS

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X